BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:17 PM

Think you got 1,000, McGrath !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:13 PM

No, I try to use language correctly, and bugger is the right word. And I did think about the possible connotations of arse about face. Whether you did, I couldn't say.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:13 PM

Bill , interesting you should use the word ...concept.....as until you are able to demonstrate that evolution of the microbes to mudcatters idea is true, it is merely a concept.   Am I getting it wrong and twisting that concept, I don't think so !   The concept does teach that over countless generations complete body plans change, does it not into vastly different organisms ? How many time have I been told that we got dinos on our bird table ?.       And science has not worked out anything , but scientists do make discoveries, and if more scientists than not interpret the data as evolutionism, that proves nothing other than that is the paradigm at present. Scientists are not impartial, as , IMO, the many recent discoveries illustrate. They point to a far more recent creation, but because the paradigm rules ,the evolutionists are searching for some way that the obvious conclusions from measured rates of decay can be disregarded or reinterpreted.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 04:58 PM

Let me just make summat clear. When a bloke like Joe, whose chinks have been showing an awful lot recently, makes an unwise remark, I can't pretend that I don't take pleasure in rubbing his nose in it somewhat. He can call me whatever he likes. It'll always reflect more on him than on me.

I don't usually call prostitutes prostitutes, pete. Sex workers maybe.

And Kevin, it would have to be "buggerer".   And have a little think about arse about face. Not a good comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 04:17 PM

Joe, Does it matter if my wife is actually male or female or even sky blue pink with yellow dots on. I'm afraid you are showing an element of (I'll not use the word ...yet) which I would think you would appalled by if you cared to think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 04:05 PM

Reserving judgment on whether joe legitimately used the contentious word, rather, Steve, I would ask if you have something against prostitutes , or think that such an analogy is insulting. On what basis would you think , either the profession it self, is shameful or wrong, or that allusion to it to yourself is insulting ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 02:57 PM

"I have the hide of a rhino." You mistake yourself Steve, unless rhinos are much more thin-skinned than I have been led to understand.

Words really do extend their meaning. If I accused someone of being a silly bugger it would not be a comment on their sexual inclinations. A journalist writing a dishonest advertising supplement could very likely find themselves accused of prostituting their talents, and deservedly so, though it would indeed have been pejorative. And no subliminal flash in either case.

When you accused Joe of being "arse about face" I take it you were not discussing his anatomical arragements, or talking about sexual antics. No subliminal flash there either, I would confidently say.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 01:03 PM

The use of the word was provocative and highly inappropriate, especially as the context you chose for it was invalid in any case. If you really think that my illustration of its use in connection with working girls meant that I thought you were making a sexual reference, it's you who's having problems with English, old chap. However, we all know that when the word is used in a pejorative context, there will be at least a subliminal flash in many people's minds in that direction. Maybe that's what you intended, maybe it wasn't.

On this rather tedious matter of my timelines, let's just say that you had three choices:

1. You weren't sure of your facts so you wouldn't make the reference.
2. You checked your facts and made the reference (had you not wanted to be arsed to check threads, you could have asked. I'm a nIce bloke).
3. You could have failed to check your facts and made the reference anyway, thereby taking something of a risk.

It was your call and you got it arse about face. It happens.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 12:39 PM

Mr. Shaw, perhaps you need to learn English, or at least learn how to understand metaphor. It might even help you learn how intelligent people think.

Unless one is a strict literalist unable to comprehend word meanings beyond the dictionary's first definition, "To prostitute oneself" does not necessarily have anything to do with sex or prostitutes. It refers to compromising one's values, as a confirmed atheist would do if he were to teach in a religious school.

Look it up, and don't act the dunce quite so often.

-Joe Offer-

P.S. In this thread, which has 990-something messages, where was it that I was supposed to find out when you quit teaching in church schools?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 12:20 PM

"You're really stretching things, Raggytash. I didn't know you were marrried, and wasn't sure whether you were male or female. But since you couldn't refute my point that sex should be sacred, you tried a flank attack by condemning my failure to know you were married. Much like Mr. Shaw's condemning my failure to know that he "dropped religion" thirty years ago and still claims expertise on Catholicism.

-Joe Offer-"

Well you really ought to be checking your facts before opening your mouth. Begod, my dropping of religion in my thirties has even been mentioned higher up in this 'ere very thread. Not good enough, Joe Offer.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 12:11 PM

"I said you prostituted yourself by teaching in a Catholic school while being an atheist. I did not call you a prostitute - and you would have read me the Riot Act if I had pulled a similar switcheroo. And with all your verbiage and switch-hitting, it's easy to get confused about what you've said and what your personal history is."

Hmm. That woman prostituted herself by having paid-for sex with lots of men. That woman is a prostitute because she had paid-for sex with lots of men. Not a huge amounts of difference, Joe. Why don't you just admit that it was a bloody stupid thing to say, especially as you failed to check the facts that rendered it entirely inappropriate in the first place? There is no confusion of the sort you allude to arising from my "verbiage". Generally, I manage to express myself all too clearly and directly for some of you. You should have checked your facts before you made that horrid remark. Grown ups don't make horrid remarks without doing that first. And you have the nerve to call me highly offensive. I'll get back to that in just a minute.   

" If someone is able to refute something you've said, your usual response is to contend that you never said what you said. If someone does a reasonable paraphrase of what you've said, you play games and pick at their paraphrase instead of their point. You don't play fair."

If you can present me with a single instance where this claim is borne out I'll eat my hat. It's just frustrated, utter rubbish, and you know it.

"Their faith is something they treasure, something they consider to be part of themselves, something that they have chosen for deeply personal reasons that they really can't explain..."

But even though you can't explain it you have no compunction whatsoever in justifying passing it on to children as truth. Well, anyone who tells me that I should believe something, as you do in faith schools, etc., had better be able to explain what it is I'm supposed to believe first, otherwise I might just have to take him for a fool.

"My faith is a matter of the heart, just as my choice to love my wife is a matter of my heart. I can't defend my love for my wife, and I can't defend my faith - and it's an insult and an offense for someone to attack either my love or my faith."

I wouldn't dream of attacking your choice to love your wife, though I seem to recall an intrusive and not-unconnected remark along those lines that you made to someone else recently. Your faith is immune as well, as long as you keep it as your faith and don't try to spread it around as truth, as happens in those faith schools. That's when you are deserving of attack. I have always been at great pains to keep that distinction very clear. Of course, if we're going to discuss religion we are going to get people who don't think your faith falls within the realms of evidence and reason. It can be quite amusing to see rational people, confronted with that, retreating to the realms of matters of the heart. It may surprise you to know that we heathens have hearts just as big as yours, but perhaps we try a little harder to keep them free of bullshit.

" Such matters are not and should not be within the realm of attack and defense. The exception would be if I were to proselytize here or use my faith as a springboard for attacking somebody else, and I have never done that."

You're not going to do much harm proselytising here, except to yourself, as pete does. That is not the argument for me. Rather, it's the justification for proselytising to children in faith schools. I keep on asking the very simple question, among all my verbiage: why do you think it's better to tell children things that are partly or wholly untruthful instead if telling them the unvarnished truth? I wonder whether it could just be that believers are so brainwashed themselves that they can no longer separate fantasy from reality.

"You may claim I've attacked you, but that's not true. I've merely attempted to fend off your constant stream of attacks. I've never attacked anyone's atheism, and I don't believe that McGrath or DMcG have attacked anyone's atheism, either - I would suppose that all three of us have considered ourselves to be atheists or at least agnostics at some times in our lives."

Why don't you sign them up into a gang? It's quite a popular pursuit around here. You may care to ask yourself why my exchanges with them, though bathed in absolute disagreement about many things, are far less abrasive than my exchanges with you. Seems ironic that an atheist should be asking a Catholic to examine their conscience...

"We have disagreed with your constant and vehement attacks against religious belief. Somehow, I guess, attacking your attacks is against your rules. Such is life."

Not so. I have the hide of a rhino. But when people say stupid things about me, as you've done, generally they can expect a bit of comeback. Such is not life. Mudcat threads are not life. Go to the back of the class and write that out fifty times.

"But you attack religion like a dog attacks a bone. You put so much energy into your attacks that it started long ago to seem really weird."

Nice gambit but no cigar. I'll be back to that one.

"You taught in a Catholic school until you were 29 years old, in 1980; and you "dropped religion" a few years later. So, that's about thirty years ago, right? That's a long time ago, Steve. One could wonder why you maintain such animosity after all these years, and why you expend so much time and energy energy expressing that animosity. Why can't you find it in your heart to say, "Religion is not my thing," and then drop it and focus your energy elsewhere? Why not try some positive endeavor, rather than spending your time attacking what others hold sacred?"

Because religion does not deserve a comfort zone. It has done too much damage and has stunted too much human endeavour.

"I'm sure you "dropped religion" for valid reasons. Sometime in their late teens or during their twenties, people go through a "crisis of faith" where they have to decide to accept or reject the faith they were brought up with. My four children all rejected the Catholic faith, but they don't harbor any animosity toward it like the animosity that seems to govern so much of your life.

Maybe something bad happened to you in a Catholic institution. I wouldn't blame you for "dropping religion" for that, either. Some people do bad things, even within the context of religion - but most religious people do nothing harmful in the name of their religion, so it's unfair to attack religion based on the misconduct of some believers."

Lost to you in all my verbiage are a number of references to the fact that nothing bad ever happened to me (except that I had to waste thirty-odd years saying prayers to nobody). How kind of you to project your psychological skills on to me. Unfortunately, there's nothing in it. A bit like calling me a prostitute. You could have checked, but I'm not bitter.

"If you attack what is sacred to me, you attack me."

Well then, isn't it a shame that we no longer have heresy laws. You really haven't worked out yet what exactly I'm attacking, have you, in spite of my explaining it so many times among all my verbiage? And you use of "sacred" is getting tedious.

"So, no, I wouldn't dream of defending my faith to you."

I don't want you to and never have done. But I challenge you to defend the practice of lying to children on the grounds that it's better than telling them the plain truth. If you don't rise to it, I won't die exactly.

[I notice that I've just edited out two more " sacred" references...]. :-)

"I consider your continued attacks to be highly offensive, so I speak out against those attacks on occasion."

But you don't regard calling me a prostitute or playing the amateur psychologist without first checking your facts to be offensive. Religion needs to be put under constant attack because it isn't true and it does a good deal of harm. I'm rather tempted to put you on a Christian pedestal in order to knock you off it, just like pete does to atheists and scientists (which I note, incidentally, that you're very indulgent towards), but, at the end of the day, and of this over-long post, we're all flawed human beings who need to cast out a plank or two. And I think that's rather Christian of me actually. And stop getting offended. If your faith is really so strong you should be able to laugh off people like me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 12:04 PM

Raggytash: Yet you find it acceptable to attack and even question my love for my wife. Pot, kettle and black spring to mind. Oh and by the way I can defend my love for my wife, very easily in fact.

You're really stretching things, Raggytash. I didn't know you were marrried, and wasn't sure whether you were male or female. But since you couldn't refute my point that sex should be sacred, you tried a flank attack by condemning my failure to know you were married. Much like Mr. Shaw's condemning my failure to know that he "dropped religion" thirty years ago and still claims expertise on Catholicism.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 11:44 AM

'm quite happy to think that you have now divorced good schooling from catholicity. Reading your posts over the last few days, that hasn't really come across.

I think that is probably because we have been talking a lot about faith schools that are perceived as good. If that gave the impression I thought only faith schools could be good it was unintentional. That is not something I have just worked out in the pat few days! It reminds me of the old joke about the mother who gives her son two ties for Christmas. He dutifully comes downstairs wearing one to be asked "And what's wrong with the other one?" Addressing one, be it tie or type of school, doesn't really say anything about the other.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 07:08 AM

Well I don't really want to get into this big league tables thing too deeply for fear of being anecdotal, but they're worse than useless. They unhelpfully give schools with struggling reputations even worse ones and they take no account of the ability of the intake. The tests that lead to their construction are blunt instruments which are fatally corrupted by the bad practice I've described. Most teachers treat them with derision, seeing them as unfair and an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on their time. Hoops to jump through with more attention to their reputations (after all, Ofsted are around the corner) than to informing what they do next with their children, which is the whole point of assessment, and which the system dismisses out of hand. This government carries on with a one-size-fits-all Key Stage 4 assessment regime that is continually interfered with and tweaked and subjected to ideological interference. League tables are not better than nothing. They are worse than nothing.

I'm quite happy to think that you have now divorced good schooling from catholicity. Reading your posts over the last few days, that hasn't really come across.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:34 AM

Right, I can finally get back to Steve's larger post now. As what we are about is an exchange of views, not saying one of us is right and the other wrong, I think it would be silly to go through it point by point, then have Steve respond to that point by point, and me do the same until one of us dies of exhaustion. So what I will do is pick out one or two points where I don't think there is actually very much disagreement between us, but would benefit from being fleshed out a bit.

You are unconsciously conflating two very distinct groups of people here under the banner "non-religious." There are those who detest religion of any kind and who would not on principle send a child to a faith school. Then there are the couldn't-care-lessers about religion. I know that church attendances are dire and I don't think that we are exactly overrun by militant atheists either, so let's be outrageous and estimate that the vast majority of people couldn't give a stuff. In that case, I think that very few people come into your category of thinking that faith schools are "a price worth paying". Whether it's a faith school or not doesn't really come into their thinking at all, does it? They want the school with the local good name, and principles don't come into it.

That may be. But what I was really trying to do was say that it is hardly surprising people of a given faith would want to go to a school of that faith, so we cannot regard them as particularly relevant for the popularity stakes. Removing these from consideration gives what I meant by non-religious: everyone who actively chooses the school for reasons other than religion. And, true, a great many don't give a toss at all. I'd be astonished if many people who hated the whole idea of religion actively chose to send their child to a faith school but the world is a weird place sometimes and there can be reasons even for that. And as I said in the bit you found convoluted, we can determine if there is a correlation between faith schools and ones selected because they see them as 'good schools'. That's correlation, not causation.

Successive governments have encouraged a sickening atmosphere of competition by publishing league tables, which are just about the worst measure of whether a school is giving children a worthwhile, happy and edifying experience. You appear to have been suckered into that ethos, unfortunately.

We are getting a heck of a long way from the Pope in America here, I know, but before I can answer that, we need to have covered a bit of preparation. I am confident Steve could write this bit better than me, but here goes.   There are a number of conflicting things a school is supposed to do, and most people do not have a settled view on what a 'good' school is because of that.   Picking three things out of many: (a) 'Educate': That is, if I remember correctly, from the Latin 'educare' which means to draw out. In essence, this is getting the child to develop their innate skills. If they are artistic, help them to be better artists. If they are interested in poetry, to be better poets, or be able to explain poems to others well. It is essentially nothing whatsoever to do with being employable except by coincidence. (b) Be Employable: This is all about grades in the 'right' subjects. Concentrate on getting the child to be able to do things, by rote if necessary, to get a high score on the test. Understanding what it is about, or whether they have a talent for it, is not really that important. Results are what count. (c) Be socialised: Be able to relate to other people, understand how 'the system' works, know what is and is not acceptable behaviour. Again, this is not really much do to with the other two.

Now back to Steve's opening point: league tables.   They are all about the grades: a school is considered highly performing if it has excellent grades even if every child turns out a sociopath and none of the student's actual abilities have been noticed.   The grades are also very susceptible to rote learning rather than understanding. Moving away from schools into Universities, there are now stories every year about students feeling aggrieved that there are questions on papers that were not covered on syllabus. The year before last there was such a complaint from final year economists for a question I reckoned I could get at least half marks on despite having never studied any economics. But what bothered me more was that these graduates hoped to get employed within a month or two. Did they imagine their employer would be happy with the answer "Sorry, can't help you there, it wasn't on my syllabus?".   That's an illustration of why we need to be careful not to be suckered into treating grades too seriously.

But ultimately it means we have this choice. Either we look at the league tables and results and degree level , holding them at arm's length and wearing a nose-peg if we have to. Or we have no guidance at all. And as Steve says league tables, which are education type b, are an extremely unreliable guide to types a and c.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 04:23 AM

I'm trying to get you blokes to put at least a credit card between good achievement and catholicity. Neither of you at present seem to accept without demur that you can actually have one without the other, and that it often happens, and that it's actually better when it happens.

Still not time to properly respond, but I am quite happy to put not only credit cards but the entire Encyclopaedia Britannia between good achievement and catholicity. I can accept without demur that you can have without the other and that it often happens.   I can even accept without demur that for an atheist it is better that it happens. But you must expect any person of religion, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever, to think, all other things being equal, that a school aligned with their faith is better for them than one which isn't aligned at all, and the unaligned one is far better than one actively opposing their faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 04:18 AM

Joe you stated "My faith is a matter of the heart, just as my choice to love my wife is a matter of my heart. I can't defend my love for my wife, and I can't defend my faith - and it's an insult and an offense for someone to attack either my love or my faith. Such matters are not and should not be within the realm of attack and defense. The exception would be if I were to proselytize here or use my faith as a springboard for attacking somebody else, and I have never done that"

Yet you find it acceptable to attack and even question my love for my wife. Pot, kettle and black spring to mind. Oh and by the way I can defend my love for my wife, very easily in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 02:19 AM

 "nothing can ever separate us from God's love which is in Jesus Christ our Lord."
--Francis

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 01:44 AM

It seems, Steve, that somehow you think yourself to be entitled to set the rules for the discussion. I said you prostituted yourself by teaching in a Catholic school while being an atheist. I did not call you a prostitute - and you would have read me the Riot Act if I had pulled a similar switcheroo. And with all your verbiage and switch-hitting, it's easy to get confused about what you've said and what your personal history is. If someone is able to refute something you've said, your usual response is to contend that you never said what you said. If someone does a reasonable paraphrase of what you've said, you play games and pick at their paraphrase instead of their point. You don't play fair.

None of the people here who professes religion, with the possible exception of Pete, has claimed that their religious denomination is without fault. They have chosen to practice their faith within a given denomination for a variety of reasons. Their faith is something they treasure, something they consider to be part of themselves, something that they have chosen for deeply personal reasons that they really can't explain - especially if they are under attack.

My faith is a matter of the heart, just as my choice to love my wife is a matter of my heart. I can't defend my love for my wife, and I can't defend my faith - and it's an insult and an offense for someone to attack either my love or my faith. Such matters are not and should not be within the realm of attack and defense. The exception would be if I were to proselytize here or use my faith as a springboard for attacking somebody else, and I have never done that.

You may claim I've attacked you, but that's not true. I've merely attempted to fend off your constant stream of attacks. I've never attacked anyone's atheism, and I don't believe that McGrath or DMcG have attacked anyone's atheism, either - I would suppose that all three of us have considered ourselves to be atheists or at least agnostics at some times in our lives.

We have disagreed with your constant and vehement attacks against religious belief. Somehow, I guess, attacking your attacks is against your rules. Such is life.

But you attack religion like a dog attacks a bone. You put so much energy into your attacks that it started long ago to seem really weird.

You taught in a Catholic school until you were 29 years old, in 1980; and you "dropped religion" a few years later. So, that's about thirty years ago, right? That's a long time ago, Steve. One could wonder why you maintain such animosity after all these years, and why you expend so much time and energy energy expressing that animosity. Why can't you find it in your heart to say, "Religion is not my thing," and then drop it and focus your energy elsewhere? Why not try some positive endeavor, rather than spending your time attacking what others hold sacred?

I'm sure you "dropped religion" for valid reasons. Sometime in their late teens or during their twenties, people go through a "crisis of faith" where they have to decide to accept or reject the faith they were brought up with. My four children all rejected the Catholic faith, but they don't harbor any animosity toward it like the animosity that seems to govern so much of your life.

Maybe something bad happened to you in a Catholic institution. I wouldn't blame you for "dropping religion" for that, either. Some people do bad things, even within the context of religion - but most religious people do nothing harmful in the name of their religion, so it's unfair to attack religion based on the misconduct of some believers.

Steve sez:

OK, so you can't address this. I get that. You think it's true that Jesus was born of a virgin. That he turned water into wine. That he came back from the dead. If you see these things as the truth you really should be able to support them. I think they are not true, and I'm more than happy to support that, point by point. I don't really care what people see as true. Or false. I do care that some people, including you, see no problem in peddling unsupportable myth to children as truth. I think that if there was a God he'd regard that as sinful in the extreme. Perhaps you could tell me, even if you don't like dealing in things point by point, what is so wrong with telling children the truth. I think I might have asked this a few times now. I await.

Yes, you addressed this comment to somebody else, but it applies to my faith, too. Yes, those are more-or-less the things I believe. They are an integral part of my faith, and the faith of all Christians. They are things that I cannot explain or prove, and I can only imagine what they mean or how they happened. They are not something to be proved or disproved. They are something I ponder and pray about, not something I seek proof for. All I know is that my faith has been a rich and deep experience for me, and so I practice it - and it's sacred to me. If you attack what is sacred to me, you attack me.

The same thing applies to what Europeans have done to the religious practices of all the peoples they have conquered. They don't appreciate or respect what others hold sacred, so they attack and attempt to destroy it.

So, no, I wouldn't dream of defending my faith to you. And I wouldn't dream of trying to convert you or anybody to Christianity. If somebody sees my faith practice and it makes sense to them, then I'd welcome them to join me - and I'd tell them the truth about what I believe, warts and all. But I don't expect that of you. All I expect is for you to respect me for who I am and what I hold sacred.

I consider your continued attacks to be highly offensive, so I speak out against those attacks on occasion.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 06:10 PM

"There are masses of posts from you on this great long thread. It's unreasonable to expect people to check and cross reference things we've said and doing some kind of textual analysis. "

There is a gulf of difference between expecting people to cross-check, etc., which I don't expect, and refraining from calling people prostitutes on the basis of some hazy and inaccurate feeling of timings which you can't be arsed to check. If I called you a prostitute you would expect me to have bloody solid grounds for saying it, otherwise you'd expect me to keep my big mouth SHUT. You are defending the indefensible. Please don't make me think that it's two Catholics closing ranks. I expect better of you than that. I actually expect better of myself for thinking that thought. However, it's still nowhere near as bad as calling an honest bloke a prostitute.

"As for the rest, there's a real disagreement between us. What you see as indoctrination I see on the whole as perfectly appropriate and valuable. Essentially, where you see false I see true. Point by point or generalisations."

OK, so you can't address this. I get that. You think it's true that Jesus was born of a virgin. That he turned water into wine. That he came back from the dead. If you see these things as the truth you really should be able to support them. I think they are not true, and I'm more than happy to support that, point by point. I don't really care what people see as true. Or false. I do care that some people, including you, see no problem in peddling unsupportable myth to children as truth. I think that if there was a God he'd regard that as sinful in the extreme. Perhaps you could tell me, even if you don't like dealing in things point by point, what is so wrong with telling children the truth. I think I might have asked this a few times now. I await.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 05:12 PM

There are masses of posts from you on this great long thread. It's unreasonable to expect people to check and cross reference things we've said and doing some kind of textual analysis. I'm pretty sure you've mentioned working in a Cathollc school more often and more recently than the fact that you only turned against religion in later years, and that most of the mentions have been in a context of bitterly criticising that kind of education.

Seems a perfectly reasonable misunderstanding, and Joe's comment, on that basis, doesn't really seem excessive.

As for the rest, there's a real disagreement between us. What you see as indoctrination I see on the whole as perfectly appropriate and valuable. Essentially, where you see false I see true. Point by point or generalisations.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 04:07 PM

I'm sorry, but I've made it clear several times that my giving up religion came well into my thirties. Saying that I prostituted myself was a rush to judgement before checking the facts. Completely unjustified and unnecessarily nasty to boot. The facts were eminently checkable. All he had to do was ask. But he didn't bother. A number of his recent posts have been similarly goading. It's hard to avoid the feeling that what I have to say makes him defensive. You'd have thought that a theologian ought to be far more inside his comfort zone than that when attacking the likes of me.

As for Catholic schools performing well, I didn't say that they haven't or couldn't. I'm trying to get you blokes to put at least a credit card between good achievement and catholicity. Neither of you at present seem to accept without demur that you can actually have one without the other, and that it often happens, and that it's actually better when it happens. I am primarily arguing against any religious indoctrination in schools at all, on the grounds that it is anti-educational and highly untruthful, not what schooling should be about. And I'm hanging on to the word indoctrination. I characterised Christian proselytisation in my long post above. I invite you to disagree with it point by point, not in some hazy generalities, or by telling me that it works for you, or that it reveals deeper truths (as if you need religion for that anyway. You don't). We are talking here about what you tell children to believe. I think that we should show them how to find out things for themselves, to be curious, and to question everything. Why not? You won't get that with an immutable Godly starting point.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 03:37 PM

Taking it that Joe appears to have understood that you'd been teaching in Catholic schools feeling the same way about them that you do now, I can't see his comment as anyway out of line, or anything to get hot under the collar about.

A misunderstanding, but not an unreasonable one. If someone as hostile to Catholicism and all religious belief as you are now were to teach in a Catholic school for years on end, and go along with all the stuff you detest, wouldn't you see it as a bit off?

I quite accept that the kind of official evidence that you mention can be questonable. I've known cases where what seem to be pretty good schools have been downgraded in ways I thought were unfair. Likely enough it happens the other way too. I know it does in other fields, notably the Care Quality Commission, which has given favourable reports on some shocking care homes.

But the favourable reports on Catholic schools have been a bit too consistent to dismiss them out of hand, and throw them over in favour of anecdotal evidence - though I don't dismiss anecdotal evidence, which can be crucial in setting off alarm bells. But I think it's rreeasonable to accept that these schools do perform well in educational terms.

It strikes me that "serving others, tolerance, trust, respect, prayer and forgiveness" are a pretty good set of criteria", leaving aside "prayer" for you, and including it for me. These kind of blurbs for schools inescapably tend to be a bit pompous and remote, but St Mark,s seems a pretty decent school.

As for "falling back on God" What could I have been thinking of!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 02:30 PM

That's a long and detailed post, Steve, and I am my way out shortly. Please excuse me if I don't get back to you until at least tomorrow. And since my wife has been away in Thailand and gets back tomorrow, maybe it will be longer.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 02:11 PM

Thank you for you careful and civil response, DMcG. It's good to see that at least one person, maybe two, can disagree without making snide and uncalled-for remarks! Much to disagree with still, however.

"In many cases, but by no means all, faith schools are seen by large numbers of people as better. And that is a matter of evidence in the form of the extent to which they are over-subscribed."

I don't take over-subscribed to be much of a measure of anything. What parents, governors and even Ofsted inspectors perceive is usually at odds with what actually goes on in schools. Successive governments have encouraged a sickening atmosphere of competition by publishing league tables, which are just about the worst measure of whether a school is giving children a worthwhile, happy and edifying experience. You appear to have been suckered into that ethos, unfortunately. There is widespread cheating in key stage testing that is connived in by teachers, head teachers and school governors. When you know it goes on, you either join in or you suffer. As for over-subscribed being a measure, well most boy band gigs are over-subscribed within seconds of the tickets going on sale. As our merkin cousins might say, go figure.

"The words people use to describe why they choose the school tend to be words like ethos and discipline. And better discipline gives less class disruption which helps better teaching. So many non-religious parents regard that as a price worth paying. Now, let us imagine that was not in the school, so that it became effectively a non-faith school. Would that improve things? Well, the best assumption we can make is that it would become very similar to all the existing non-faith schools, which are precisely the ones less favoured if a parent chose a faith school. So the best assumption we could make is that yes, the school would be worse without it."

I find that to be getting more and more convoluted by the sentence. I can't argue that good discipline and a positive ethos are not good things, but I'm failing to see how on earth you can connect those things to religion.

"so let me summarise that as the straight response you are seeking: I, and many other including a lot of non-believers, believe that might be a price worth paying."

You are unconsciously conflating two very distinct groups of people here under the banner "non-religious." There are those who detest religion of any kind and who would not on principle send a child to a faith school. Then there are the couldn't-care-lessers about religion. I know that church attendances are dire and I don't think that we are exactly overrun by militant atheists either, so let's be outrageous and estimate that the vast majority of people couldn't give a stuff. In that case, I think that very few people come into your category of thinking that faith schools are "a price worth paying". Whether it's a faith school or not doesn't really come into their thinking at all, does it? They want the school with the local good name, and principles don't come into it.

"I am not being glib about that. It has dangers and I am well aware of that. Nor am I saying 'indoctrination' is acceptable in general. We are well aware of how that has been used over the 20th century to enable no end of horrors. But 'indoctrination' is a loaded word and should not really be used for just for teaching people ideas you personally disagree with or you eventually find yourself in company with pete's claims that people are indoctrinated with a belief in evolutionism (I know, I know)...)"

Well let's take a look. Your religion is wholly predicated on your belief in God. You have no evidence for a God, you've never seen him, and all you have is ancient writings often of dubious provenance, the edicts of holy men, your ceremonies and traditions, the say-so of several demented witnesses who spoke to the Virgin or saw a statue moving and the confused writings of theologians. On top of that, your main man is supposed to have been the product of a virgin birth, who could raise the dead, turn water into wine and come back from the dead. You are so certain of all this that all your prayers and hymns assert the literal truth of it all. Now all this is what teachers tell children, from the age of five upward, in religious instruction classes. There will probably be a crucifix on the classroom wall depicting a scene of obscene violence that probably never happened, and there will certainly be the chanting of some of those prayers and the singing of hymns. You think that it's all right to do this to children regardless of their age and regardless of the truth, which is that most of what you're telling them is actually not the case. But you think that this is better that telling them the actual unvarnished truth, that there are severe doubts about all of it. You think that avoiding the real truth will help them to lead better lives and see deeper truths. Well excuse me for thinking that it all adds up to indoctrination. When we see other belief systems making similarly-unsupportable assertions we call it radicalisation. Ok, it's easier to get out of Christianity, but that's a pretty threadbare reason for commending that approach.

"As to the validity of the evidence on over-subscription, I find it a bit astonishing that you think the majority of non-religious parents are prepared to pick schools they know are damaging for their children just so they can name-drop the school at the local golf club. Yes, such people exist, but my anecdotal evidence is that many more non-religious people put themselves through years of attending a church they don't believe in and what-not precisely because they believe it is best for the child."

Well, view all that from within the context of ruthless competition among schools, and the fact that most non-religious people don't give a monkey's, and it all looks a little less principled and virtuous.

"And I think the schools on the whole work better than the secular alternative, and that's essentially thanks to the religious ethos."

Unsupportable.

" We have outcomes in the forms of league tables and academic results that could also be statistically correlated. "

What with? These assessments are fatally corrupted by poor and often dishonest marking (in order to get your kid into the desired attainment level), inconsistent teacher preparation, extremely poor moderation (that was the bane of my life), coaching and prompting during the tests. All anecdotal, of course. It's in everyone's interest to connive and in no-one's to blow the whistle. Maybe it's too corny for words to say it, but maybe you just have to have been there. Just like me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 01:02 PM

An even sillier post and completely unapologetic for the disgraceful use of the word prostituted. I should like you to reflect on whose views are the more immature. For your reference, my time frames are as follows. Ages four to 11, Roman Catholic primary school. Ages 11 to 18, Roman Catholic grammar school run by Salesian fathers and brothers. Ages 18 to 22, university and teacher training. Ages 22 to 29, teacher in a Roman Catholic comprehensive school in East London. Age early thirties, dropped religion. After 1980, when I was 29, teaching in non-faith secondary schools in Walthamstow then west Devon. No clashes there between me and religion. Not a prostitute in sight. Do you have confessions still in America?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 12:01 PM

Ah, Steve, sorry to have been mistaken about the timeframe of your teaching in Catholic institutions. With the expertise you feign, I thought your experience had been far more recent. You must have been a mere child at the time of your experience. Too bad you didn't have the opportunity to develop a more mature view of religion.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 11:21 AM

What an incredibly unpleasant post from Joe Offer. I was a practising Catholic during all the years I attended as a pupil and taught as a teacher at the faith schools I was connected to. I left the secondary faith school I taught at in 1980, a few years before I gave up on religion. I've recounted this time scale several times, including in an allusion in this thread. Your use of the word prostituted is negative, inflammatory and trolling.

As for this:
Such is the case with all your rash generalizations, Steve. They're true, but they don't tell the whole story. All you see is the negative side of the things you don't espouse. For some of us, religion has been a very positive experience, something that does not limit the breadth of our thinking whatsoever.

It's hard to see how rash generalisations can be true. Perhaps you you were using American English. As for religion not limiting your thinking, well it's certainly got you thinking about evolution arse about face, something you've already demonstrated in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 05:51 AM

I haven't seen that film Jim, but it is a bad idea in general to let any group have uncontrolled access to people's minds. Many places including Ireland have suffered really badly when religion comes to dominate. I'm not at all in favour of that. I think religion should be part of the mix, others don't, but the mix needs to be much richer than any single set of views.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 04:30 AM

Watched a remarkable film last night - would recommend it to anybody with and doubts about giving the Church uncontrolled access to peoples' minds
CONSPIRACY of SILENCE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 03:36 AM

That's my anecdotal stuff, but at least I know I'm honest, even if YOU don't think so!

I don't doubt your honesty. and I don't think anyone else does either. I hope that is mutual.

However, there will still be a veneer of indoctrination and enforced worship. I am still waiting for my two estimable friends, Kevin and DMcG, to tell me straight whether they think that this is acceptable

I think we have both done so several times, but I will do so again. In many cases, but by no means all, faith schools are seen by large numbers of people as better. And that is a matter of evidence in the form of the extent to which they are over-subscribed. The words people use to describe why they choose the school tend to be words like ethos and discipline. And better discipline gives less class disruption which helps better teaching. So many non-religious parents regard that as a price worth paying. Now, let us imagine that was not in the school, so that it became effectively a non-faith school. Would that improve things? Well, the best assumption we can make is that it would become very similar to all the existing non-faith schools, which are precisely the ones less favoured if a parent chose a faith school. So the best assumption we could make is that yes, the school would be worse without it.

so let me summarise that as the straight response you are seeking: I, and many other including a lot of non-believers, believe that might be a price worth paying.

I am not being glib about that. It has dangers and I am well aware of that. Nor am I saying 'indoctrination' is acceptable in general. We are well aware of how that has been used over the 20th century to enable no end of horrors. But 'indoctrination' is a loaded word and should not really be used for just for teaching people ideas you personally disagree with or you eventually find yourself in company with pete's claims that people are indoctrinated with a belief in evolutionism (I know, I know)...)


As to the validity of the evidence on over-subscription, I find it a bit astonishing that you think the majority of non-religious parents are prepared to pick schools they know are damaging for their children just so they can name-drop the school at the local golf club. Yes, such people exist, but my anecdotal evidence is that many more non-religious people put themselves through years of attending a church they don't believe in and what-not precisely because they believe it is best for the child.


"And I think the schools on the whole work better than the secular alternative, and that's essentially thanks to the religious ethos."

Evidence?

Well, let's adopt the scientific approach we both love, and reject all the subjective anecdotes we would not accept in science. We have evidence of popularity in terms of over-subscriptions. We have an informal view, which could be statistically verified if need be, that there are correlations between being popular and being a faith school. We have outcomes in the forms of league tables and academic results that could also be statistically correlated. (This last one, by the way, I have no idea whether there is a positive, negative, or zero correlation, but it could be done.)

So we have all the raw data for the calculations and it is am informal perception of all that that makes these people believe one school is better than another. If could all be formalised, but I don't think anyone has done so.

All that is objective (or in the case of Ofsted reports at least formal) Against that we have honestly made but subjective anecdotes. Wearing your scientist's hat, Steve, which would you go for?

By the way, I come to BS Mudcat to vent my spleen. exercise my poor brain and try to state my opinions as articulately and in as unprejudiced a manner as I can muster. I never expect to change anyone's opinions.

I agree (except for the spleen bit) I don't expect to change your opinion, nor pete's, nor Joe's, nor McGrath's nor anyone else on this thread. I have no interest in doing so. What I get out of this is a better understanding of other people's views, which I believe enhances my own understanding in general.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 11:58 PM

Steve Shaw says: The parents you are talking about are the ruthless, pushy, unprincipled buggers who will do almost anything to get their kids into a school that they think has the good local reputation.

Yes, Steve, I suppose UK faith schools have a few parents like that. US religious schools have a few wealthy parents who are annoyingly demanding to the point of being litigious...and they never seem to be available to help with the volunteer efforts that make tuition affordable for us normal folks (not that they offer to pay higher tuition). Such people are indeed a pain in the ass - but they are a small minority, the exception and not the rule.

Such is the case with all your rash generalizations, Steve. They're true, but they don't tell the whole story. All you see is the negative side of the things you don't espouse. For some of us, religion has been a very positive experience, something that does not limit the breadth of our thinking whatsoever.

Yes, Steve, I know you taught in a faith school for a number of years. I wonder how you could have prostituted yourself like that.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 10:32 PM

"I value such expressions of that as are found in liturgy and education."

Liturgy, fine. Whatever stirs your loins. Education? Well what's your idea of religious education? Would it by any chance include sitting under a classroom crucifix, chanting mindless prayers parrot-fashion and being herded off to services? That is exactly what happens in Catholic schools. Are you happy that impressionable, immature children should be subjected to that? Yes or no, please, or would you rather do a Joe?

"And I think the schools on the whole work better than the secular alternative, and that's essentially thanks to the religious ethos."

Evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 09:42 PM

Here we have a few of the statements of aim of Kevin's much-vaunted local Catholic school (if I've got the wrong one I apologise).

"Welcome to St Mark's West Essex Catholic School website. St Mark's is a successful, well-ordered and caring Catholic school... Our aim is simple; to facilitate academic and personal success in a rigorous learning community and in a culture which embraces the Gospel values of – serving others, tolerance, trust, respect, prayer and forgiveness...

...Learning together in a Catholic community..

...Developing a love of learning, a love of Christ, and a love of each other...

.Our Catholic school is one in which Gospel values inform all aspects of community life."

Well if my experiences of Catholic schools (considerable) are anything to go by, this is utter bullshit, and the school will proceed about its daily business pretty much like any other state school. However, there will still be a veneer of indoctrination and enforced worship. I am still waiting for my two estimable friends, Kevin and DMcG, to tell me straight whether they think that this is acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 08:22 PM

I'm surprised and disappointed that you choose to fall back on God to make your argument, Kevin ;-). By the way, I come to BS Mudcat to vent my spleen. exercise my poor brain and try to state my opinions as articulately and in as unprejudiced a manner as I can muster. I never expect to change anyone's opinions.

As for the perception of schools, I've tried to explain that what may be perceived is seldom in touch with the reality of what goes on. Not only that, the alleged perception is strongly coloured by self-interest. Every area I've ever lived in or worked in (greater Manchester, Loughton, Walthamstow, Poplar, Stepney, Bude, west Devon) has had those schools that have been seen as ultra-desirable. As an insider in the teaching profession for many years, I see reputations that are ill-deserved, both good ones and bad ones, and in very few cases have I seen reputations or perceptions that match the reality. That's my anecdotal stuff, but at least I know I'm honest, even if YOU don't think so! And the elephant in the room is the parental pushiness that chucks any semblance of objectivity right out of the window. If there's one thing that many schools are quite good at, it's putting a gloss on what they get up to that is designed to deliberately confuse parents. And governors and Ofsted come to think of it. Why, when I contemplate that, I wonder what chance parents have got!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 07:45 PM

I missed out a couple of words in that firstsentence - it should have read "I was just checking whether it's just that you'd like people to think the same way about these things as you do, or whether you think something should be done to make them change.
............
The only social difference about our local Catholic comprehensive seems to be is that it's probably a good bit more multicultural than the rest - Poles, Africans, Filipinos and so forth. Maybe that might help head of the dinner party snobs you're worried about, Steve. I'd hope so anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 07:15 PM

Dinner parties??? The schools round by you must be different to those near me if they gain you entrance to those!

I am not sidetracking. I want all schools to be as high a standard as possible. If the faith schools are perceived as better I want to know why and want all the secular schools to benefits rom whatever it is. That the pushers and social climbers think a certain school is something worth moving house to be near that to me says nothing more than that school has something to offer that could benefit other schools.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 07:08 PM

i was just checking whether it's just that you'd like people to thnink the same way about these things, or whether you think something should be done to make them change.

Because while I'm perfectly happy with the first, I'd have serious difficulties with the second.

I think that a world view without God is ultimately every bit as impossible to comprehend and make sense of as the notion of a world centred on God. There's a choice between two absurdities, and I've made my choice, and it's the one that makes sense to me.

And when it comes to living, there are so many things about my religion that work for me that I'm happy to stick with it, warts and all, and since it's a communal thing, and not just individual, I value such expressions of that as are found in liturgy and education. And I think the schools on the whole work better than the secular alternative, and that's essentially thanks to the religious ethos.

I've tried doing without it, and that's over and done, I believe and hope.

And I've no expectation or desire to change your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 07:06 PM

You are sidetracking like mad. The parents you are talking about are the ruthless, pushy, unprincipled buggers who will do almost anything to get their kids into a school that they think has the good local reputation. They don't care whether their kids are indoctrinated or not. It's not even particularly about results. It's about snobbery and the desire not to be tainted by the bog standard comprehensive down the road. It's so hard to go to your dinner parties and show that off.   Their priority is to get any advantage they can for their kids regardless of the effect on other schools in the area. And the school they apply to connives in all this, as long as the kid has ability and the parents seem respectable. In a funny way you can't blame the parents. But don't pretend this doesn't happen and don't imagine for one minute that all this is done with the highest principles in mind. Let's get real about this, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 06:48 PM

That doesn't sound very productive to me, Steve, since it basically just an argument. What would be better would be to recognise that an awful lot of non-religious parents choose faith schools. Why they do that is nothing to do with my opinion, or McGrath's or yours. So since there undoubtedly is something in those schools they find attractive the worthwhile thing to do is to work out what it is and then try to reproduce 'the whatever' in the secular schools they decided against. You find the indoctrination a severe problem, but the evidence seems to be that all these other non-religious parents aren't too bothered by it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 06:29 PM

Grrr. So unkind as TO suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 06:28 PM

I honestly can't see your argument. A more productive thing would be to tell me what you disagree with about the substantive points I've made over the last few days. I'm a simple chap. Tell me what's good about religious instruction and religious worship in schools and we'll take it from there. So far it would appear that you'd rather deflect the discussion away from that and towards what you see as my mindset. That doesn't play too well with me. I won't be so unkind as you suggest that you can't address the substantive argument. Onwards and upwards!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 05:24 PM

What I meant, you can have aspirations and hopes about what other people do, and you could have it as a matter of principle that you retain those aspirations and hopes - but you can't have a principle about what other people do, just about what you do.

In the same way you can be determined to try and stop global warming, but you can't have a principle thst it does.n

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 05:13 PM

I repeat. To me it's a matter of principle because schools should be about education, not indoctrination. To reiterate, I am in favour of religious education, which, to me, means telling children about world religions and their impact in history and on the present day.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 04:20 PM

"Abusing your faith" means picking up going to church for reasons other than wanting to go to church? The pragmatic Catholic view might be, if it means the kids get a good education in a school underpinned by a Catholic religious ethosthe motives of the parents are a secondary matter.

But you've indicated that what you want to see is for people to change your minds about religion, of their own free will (assuming that free will is a meaningful concept). So what's this about "removing religious groups nstruction and worship from schools is a matter of principle"?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 03:52 PM

"All that would be different is that one possible way to try to cheat would be removed"

Of course. I'm rather glad that you see that (ab)using your faith to get your kids into the best schools is one possible way to cheat. Because it just happens to be one way of cheating among all the others doesn't mean we should just let it go. Any Christian arguing for that would clearly have no sense of irony. As I said, for me removing religious instruction and worship from schools is a matter of principle. I'm not exactly over the moon either that my tax money is used to pay for faith schools, in the same way that I'm not over the moon that my tax money helps to keep private schools as charitable institutions. Seven hundred million quid a year so that rich parents can eschew those crummy comprehensives that most of those people who pay the tax have to send their kids to. Nice.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 03:09 PM

They just are beliefs,

Uh Hunh - beliefs - like the Holocaust never happened, the moon landing was faked, Obama is a Muslim and not a U.S. citizen, Blacks are sub-human & etc............

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 01:52 PM

I should also point out that if someone wilfully, or through ignorance, refuses to acknowledge the difference between scientific theories and religious faith then they can hardly complain if they are asked to provide ("observational, repeatable, testable" sic) evidence in support of their religious beliefs!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 01:50 PM

Irony is seldom obvious in print like this, and almost never gets the attentions of those to whom it is directed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 01:43 PM

I don't disagree with you, Bill, but please make some allowances for irony!